Did Adam make the right choice?

[Revelations won]

Did Adam make the right choice?

Did Adam make the right choice in partaking of the fruit from the tree of knowledge and should we be grateful to him and give due respect and honor our first earthly parents?

2. Did Adam’s choice prohibit anyone from receiving ALL that our Father in heaven has ever promised us pertaining to our eternal destiny?

Kind regards,
RW

[William]

But oh no. They didn't like having boundaries placed on them. Mankind today still struggle with this, even with their own laws and not just God's laws.

Some people just reject any authority because they are selfish, self-centered and greedy.

However, the other side is that if you don't understand the reason for a law, there is no way for you to distinct it from an objectively bad, oppressive law.

The narrative makes it absolutely clear that they knew it would be wrong to heed the serpent. Eve repeats the command God gave them and the narrative paints God as completely trustworthy.

Only because we're sitting here reading it, and the result of eating the fruit was a bad one.

Now yes, God giving Adam and Eve a beautiful place to live, full of food, where they were out of any suffering or pain, is a big deal.

And yet, I can't help but notice that if we allow this to be instructional, the lesson to take, and the question to ask, ("Does not having this thing really hurt me? Do I still have a good life?") fails to provide an adequate foil for tyrants making bad and oppressive laws, if they boil the frog and do it slowly. The answer, each time, will be that it is such a little imposition, and our glorious leader has given us so, so much, that we ought to just trust him.

Relevant points oft overlooked.

The example given in the story is ethically questionable as to the manner in which this was achieved.

Death itself - as the result of not listening to the chief directive meant that The Chief had to prevent the pair from eating the fruit of life.

In order to counter that indiscretion, one can argue that the death The Chief had warned Adam of, was not a physical death, but a spiritual one.

Also to note, while the story gives the impression that no pain or suffering had been experienced by the pair - up to that point - there was no promise given that such would not happen.

Only death was promised. Pain and suffering were not mentioned, if memory serves me well...

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #49]
So God made him flawed, and didn't raise him to behave.
That's not a perfect, or even good, father, is it?
Even as a mythic story, you have to admit it's problematic: how did God create something imperfect? How is it possible for sin to even enter God's Creation unless God creates the space for evil?

Free Will doesn't solve the problem. The problem is the very existence of flaws, sin, evil, etc
And, if you claim Free Will is all worth it, then why has God created Heaven, where there is no sin or evil - and is there Free Will, or will you become a God-worshiping robot for eternity?

Think about it.

It's just a myth, isn't it?

[The Tanager]

Only because we're sitting here reading it, and the result of eating the fruit was a bad one.

Now yes, God giving Adam and Eve a beautiful place to live, full of food, where they were out of any suffering or pain, is a big deal.

I’m not convinced this is meant to be taken as a historical occurrence, but even if it is, why think things wouldn’t have been clear to Adam and Eve? All we have is the narrative passed down about it and that narrative’s message is that they were wrong to heed the serpent, even though it could have given more details to make that point even more explicit.

And yet, I can't help but notice that if we allow this to be instructional, the lesson to take, and the question to ask, ("Does not having this thing really hurt me? Do I still have a good life?") fails to provide an adequate foil for tyrants making bad and oppressive laws, if they boil the frog and do it slowly. The answer, each time, will be that it is such a little imposition, and our glorious leader has given us so, so much, that we ought to just trust him.

That’s not the context of this narrative at all. There is nothing oppressive about God’s command here. This application is completely out of context.

[2timothy316]

But oh no. They didn't like having boundaries placed on them. Mankind today still struggle with this, even with their own laws and not just God's laws.

Some people just reject any authority because they are selfish, self-centered and greedy.

However, the other side is that if you don't understand the reason for a law, there is no way for you to distinct it from an objectively bad, oppressive law.

Not eating from the tree denied nothing from A&E though. It's not like they were kept from eating the only tree in the whole garden. That tree wasn't doing anything to them or for them. So bad law? I don't see how it could be bad.

The narrative makes it absolutely clear that they knew it would be wrong to heed the serpent. Eve repeats the command God gave them and the narrative paints God as completely trustworthy.

Only because we're sitting here reading it, and the result of eating the fruit was a bad one.

Or we could be an advanced human species asking a thousands of years old Adam after the lesson how much God has blessed him and all of mankind for obeying. Answers to whether a law is good or bad is not only answered if the outcome is bad. Also, Adam knew what outcome was going to be before his choice because he was told point blank to disobey = Death.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #49]
So God made him flawed, and didn't raise him to behave.
That's not a perfect, or even good, father, is it?
Even as a mythic story, you have to admit it's problematic: how did God create something imperfect? How is it possible for sin to even enter God's Creation unless God creates the space for evil?

Free Will doesn't solve the problem. The problem is the very existence of flaws, sin, evil, etc
And, if you claim Free Will is all worth it, then why has God created Heaven, where there is no sin or evil - and is there Free Will, or will you become a God-worshiping robot for eternity?

Think about it.

It's just a myth, isn't it?

The Bible in this forum is viewed as true and not myth and I do not have to prove the Bible isn't a myth. For debates on myth head over to the C&E forum.

Criticism of sources, authorship, or redaction with the intent to discredit the authority of the canon are more appropriate for the Christianity and Apologetics subforum.

viewtopic.php?t=11496

Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

viewtopic.php?t=3168

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #49]
So God made him flawed, and didn't raise him to behave.
That's not a perfect, or even good, father, is it?
Even as a mythic story, you have to admit it's problematic: how did God create something imperfect? How is it possible for sin to even enter God's Creation unless God creates the space for evil?

Free Will doesn't solve the problem. The problem is the very existence of flaws, sin, evil, etc
And, if you claim Free Will is all worth it, then why has God created Heaven, where there is no sin or evil - and is there Free Will, or will you become a God-worshiping robot for eternity?

Think about it.

It's just a myth, isn't it?

The Bible in this forum is viewed as true and not myth and I do not have to prove the Bible isn't a myth. For debates on myth head over to the C&E forum.

Criticism of sources, authorship, or redaction with the intent to discredit the authority of the canon are more appropriate for the Christianity and Apologetics subforum.

viewtopic.php?t=11496

Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

viewtopic.php?t=3168

That's a great way to avoid hearing things you don't like, for sure - but rules are rules.

I still have to wonder why God made a Universe that allows for sin and flaw to begin with - after all, he proved he could make a perfect place (Heaven), why make an imperfect place? (See, Myth explains it, but if you can't admit to that, then you have to question God's motives.)

Simply put, why would a God make anything other than other Gods? If he was perfect, he'd make perfect Gods and there would be no conflict because they'd all be perfectly Loving. It's irrational to claim that another Perfect Ebing would cause conflict. We aren't talking about two nice people getting together and might have an argument - we're talking about two perfect Beings. It's impossible for them to be in conflict.

So way create Adam in the first place?

[2timothy316]

That's a great way to avoid hearing things you don't like, for sure - but rules are rules.

It is a great way to avoid things I don't want to debate but not for the reasons you think. What you say isn't anything original and I debated people with the same views as you for years. I even used to think as you. I find the subject boring now and have moved past debating in the kiddie pool. I prefer to debate with people that have more than dogmatic opinions to offer. The rules of this forum focuses on what I prefer to talk about and weed out the novice 'is there a God' debates.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #56]

So why create Adam in the first place?

Stepping out from under the religious mythology, the question becomes "If we exist within a created thing, why are we here?"
Religious mythology is simply a primitive expression of human beings attempting to answer that question.

[Purple Knight]

Not eating from the tree denied nothing from A&E though. It's not like they were kept from eating the only tree in the whole garden. That tree wasn't doing anything to them or for them. So bad law? I don't see how it could be bad.

Not having a dog does nothing to hurt me. I can have a cat instead. So a law banning dog ownership is fine.

Not being a Republican is not going to kill you. You can still vote. Vote Democrat or Independent. So a law banning voting for the Republican candidate doesn't hurt you.

Not having a kid is not going to kill anybody either. Whoever wants one doesn't have one right now and they ain't dead, so they can continue like that. Thus, a law banning some people from having children is fine. You wouldn't even know what a child was unless somebody told you.

We can ban sex. Kissing. Holding hands.

Alcohol.

Singing.

Sundresses with tulips on them.

Every time you ban one thing, it's always true that you can do all the other things. I'm not going to say no imposition on freedom is ever justified. In fact I'm more authoritarian than most. But whether it is justified or not comes down to why the ban is in place. The story makes it clear that Adam and Eve chose wrong, but if they had no way of knowing that for sure beforehand, it may have been the right choice from their perspective.

Both blind obedience and blind disobedience suck.

Or we could be an advanced human species asking a thousands of years old Adam after the lesson how much God has blessed him and all of mankind for obeying. Answers to whether a law is good or bad is not only answered if the outcome is bad. Also, Adam knew what outcome was going to be before his choice because he was told point blank to disobey = Death.

We can't be that because what would have happened had we disobeyed could have been something even greater, and we'd have no way to know, just like Adam and Eve. They did know people could lie, because the serpent said something different about whether they would surely die.

I’m not convinced this is meant to be taken as a historical occurrence, but even if it is, why think things wouldn’t have been clear to Adam and Eve? All we have is the narrative passed down about it and that narrative’s message is that they were wrong to heed the serpent, even though it could have given more details to make that point even more explicit.

For one, I can assume it wasn't clear to them because they have two people telling them opposite things about whether they would die or not. We don't even know if they interpreted it the way I might interpret, "Don't touch the stove or you'll get burned." There is no moral imperative intended in that. If I'm okay with being burned or if someone else later tells me it's not hot at the moment, I don't assume touching it is going to harm the person who commanded me not to.

If there's no why not next to a command, nobody's going to understand what kind of a command it even is. And if something just bothers someone, they can make that the why not and there's nothing wrong with that.

That’s not the context of this narrative at all. There is nothing oppressive about God’s command here. This application is completely out of context.

Indeed, God was not portrayed as a tyrant keeping the fruit from them out of spite or pettiness. But Adam and Eve had no way of knowing that.

[JehovahsWitness]

Indeed, God was not portrayed as a tyrant keeping the fruit from them out of spite or pettiness. But Adam and Eve had no way of knowing that.

If reading the account a brief outline of the facts is enough for most reasonable people to see that God was far from petty and spiteful in his provisions and treatment of them , there is every reason to conclude Adam and Eve should not have attributed such negative motives to their own Father who had shown them nothing but generosity and love.